I've seen Thor once, I've seen The Avengers twice, I have an above-average long-term memory, and I sporadically discuss these movies on forums, so I probably remember more plot details than the median viewer.

If the movie doesn't work for people who have not seen an MCU movie before never mind all the relevant MCU movies multiple times, then the movie doesn't work in my opinion. There are plenty of sequels out there that can be appreciated by someone who didn't see the original.

That's utter crap. You don't read a book 2 or see a movie 2 and know everything without book 1 or movie 1. They are sequels for a reason. If it was a Thor stand alone movie, I'd agree but every trailer, tv spot and interview lets you know that this is a continuation. Perhaps they should have a 5 minute "In case you haven't seen Thor or TA, here's a summary" for viewers with that mindthink but I hardly think it would appeal to the mass majority.

Above average long term memory? You couldn't remember Selvig from the Avengers movie and he was a huge part of it.

I've been tested as having significantly above average long-term memory.

Most people don't remember tertiary characters from movies they saw two years ago and were not emotionally engaged in. It's actually known that most of what people learn they don't remember the next day. Part of the sleeping process is to forget irrelevant details.

If I asked you a minor detail about a movie from 2011 that you didn't like you probably wouldn't remember. As an example, I don't remember the name of Selina Kyle's roommate from TDKR, the name of Rogers' brother from Captain America, etc.

How many times had you seen Thor and TA prior to seeing this movie, and how recently?

That's utter crap. You don't read a book 2 or see a movie 2 and know everything without book 1 or movie 1. They are sequels for a reason. If it was a Thor stand alone movie, I'd agree but every trailer, tv spot and interview lets you know that this is a continuation. Perhaps they should have a 5 minute "In case you haven't seen Thor or TA, here's a summary" for viewers with that mindthink but I hardly think it would appeal to the mass majority.

But once more there are plenty of sequels that I have been able to watch without seeing the originals. I saw Pirates 2 before seeing Pirates 1, and it worked because every scene built up Shrek 2 even if it also but not separately built up Shrek 1.

Oh yeah, and I saw The Avengers before seeing Thor :-) I had no trouble following anything.

Thor 2 doesn't just need the knowledge of prequels, it needs fine knowledge of the prequels.

I made a conscious effort to avoid the spoilers and previews for this movie. As a general point I think the previews for some comic book movies are too spoilery, I can't speak for the thor 2 previews since I deliberately avoided most of them :-)

Yeah, I only watched the two trailers (couldn't help myself there, as they came so early), nothing else, just to remain unspoiled as much as possible. I ran across that discussion by accident so I hadn't seen the footage but I knew one of the things that happened in that scene.

I think I would have drawn the same conclusion anyway though, but I haven't actually experienced watching the movie without that knowledge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DA_Champion

I think building up Asgard as a society and building a sense of place advances the plot. It helps immerse me (presumably others too) in the movie, in the world. Maybe I'm not using the word plot correctly, but for me proper world building is advancing the plot.

We can argue that maybe Selvig advances the plot of the MCU as a whole, but he doesn't advance the plot of Thor 2. IMO, the latter is more important.

I understand what you mean. We agree that it's important.

He does advance the plot in that he didn't only go crazy, he got some insight into a cosmic phenomenon (the one being exploited by the villain). He's providing crucial information to stop Malekith. That's why I'd sooner cut Darcy than Selvig as she is just the funny sidekick.

He does advance the plot in that he didn't only go crazy, he got some insight into a cosmic phenomenon (the one being exploited by the villain). He's providing crucial information to stop Malekith. That's why I'd sooner cut Darcy than Selvig as she is just the funny sidekick.

I admit I'm biased with regards to Darcy, aside from the fact I find Kat Dennings attractive which we've gone over, I don't like Selvig. I'm an astrophysicist for a living, and characters like Erik Selvig, Steve Urkel, etc bother me when I see them on my screen. It's not how people I know and work with behave and think, it's an offensive and insulting stereotype. I don't like the scientist stock character, and it also bothered me in Pacific Rim and in Agents of Shield.

I admit I'm biased with regards to Darcy, aside from the fact I find Kat Dennings attractive which we've gone over, I don't like Selvig. I'm an astrophysicist for a living, and characters like Erik Selvig, Steve Urkel, etc bother me when I see them on my screen. It's not how people I know and work with behave and think, it's an offensive and insulting stereotype. I don't like the scientist stock character, and it also bothered me in Pacific Rim and in Agents of Shield.

Come on, dude. We've all had jobs that are portrayed in movies in a stereotypical manner. Do you really think servers, taxi drivers, military personnel, etc get butthurt when their jobs are shown in a negative light in a movie? Also with nationalities. I'm German and there are numerous movies where the villain is German. Do I complain about it? No. Suck it up.

I admit I'm biased with regards to Darcy, aside from the fact I find Kat Dennings attractive which we've gone over, I don't like Selvig. I'm an astrophysicist for a living, and characters like Erik Selvig, Steve Urkel, etc bother me when I see them on my screen. It's not how people I know and work with behave and think, it's an offensive and insulting stereotype. I don't like the scientist stock character, and it also bothered me in Pacific Rim and in Agents of Shield.

Come on, dude. We've all had jobs that are portrayed in movies in a stereotypical manner. Do you really think servers, taxi drivers, military personnel, etc get butthurt when their jobs are shown in a negative light in a movie? Also with nationalities. I'm German and there are numerous movies where the villain is German. Do I complain about it? No. Suck it up.

While I agree with you to some extent. He's just voicing his opinion, let him be.

Come on, dude. We've all had jobs that are portrayed in movies in a stereotypical manner. Do you really think servers, taxi drivers, military personnel, etc get butthurt when their jobs are shown in a negative light in a movie? Also with nationalities. I'm German and there are numerous movies where the villain is German. Do I complain about it? No. Suck it up.

I don't like stock characters as a general rule.

Military personnel are often made to look good in movies, and that is part of why the pentagon has an extensive relationship with hollywood.

I've worked as a waiter and I don't know what you mean by servers being badly represented.

I admit I'm biased with regards to Darcy, aside from the fact I find Kat Dennings attractive which we've gone over, I don't like Selvig. I'm an astrophysicist for a living, and characters like Erik Selvig, Steve Urkel, etc bother me when I see them on my screen. It's not how people I know and work with behave and think, it's an offensive and insulting stereotype. I don't like the scientist stock character, and it also bothered me in Pacific Rim and in Agents of Shield.

I know how that can be. I have an engineering degree in IT and I've also competed at pretty high level in martial arts. I can get annoyed both at people trying to handle computers and at people fighting in movies. Sometimes I can handle it fine, other times I can't.

I find that it's generally easier for me to handle it in a movie like TDW where things isn't taken too seriously and it doesn't even try to be realistic. When a movie goes for more realism and fails I react stronger.

I like Jane, Kat, and her intern in the movie, and my remaining complaints for those characters are mere nitpicks. Overall I think those portrayals are good.

I thought the black hole bombs in this movie made a lot of sense. For those unfamiliar, small black holes evaporate very quickly, so it's plausible a futuristic society would build black hole grenades that can suck you up in the first few seconds then be harmless after that.

I know how that can be. I have an engineering degree in IT and I've also competed at pretty high level in martial arts. I can get annoyed both at people trying to handle computers and at people fighting in movies. Sometimes I can handle it fine, other times I can't.

I find that it's generally easier for me to handle it in a movie like TDW where things isn't taken too seriously and it doesn't even try to be realistic. When a movie goes for more realism and fails I react stronger.

I thought the black hole bombs in this movie made a lot of sense. For those unfamiliar, small black holes evaporate very quickly, so it's plausible a futuristic society would build black hole grenades that can suck you up in the first few seconds then be harmless after that.

This is the only place I've seen people bring it up. All of the bloggers/youtubers/critics I follow have liked/loved it and nobody mentions the comedy as a problem. I have two friends who get into early screenings all the time for their jobs and none of them mentioned the humor as a detriment either. In fact, one of them even said they wanted a bit MORE humor like the first film. Not to mention the general consensus from critics so far is surprisingly strong. 83% with over 30 good reviews. I don't see it dropping under 75% myself.

So what I'm trying to say is this website has people mentioning problems with movies old and new and in between I've never heard before from anywhere in my life long love of movies. What I'm saying is, this place is a bit odd as far as opinions go.

The humor was fine. Just Two particular scenes were badly placed.And Loki's little scheme was great. I was convinced that Loki was doing good for once. What he did really nails down the character well.

This is the only place I've seen people bring it up. All of the bloggers/youtubers/critics I follow have liked/loved it and nobody mentions the comedy as a problem. I have two friends who get into early screenings all the time for their jobs and none of them mentioned the humor as a detriment either. In fact, one of them even said they wanted a bit MORE humor like the first film. Not to mention the general consensus from critics so far is surprisingly strong. 83% with over 30 good reviews. I don't see it dropping under 75% myself.

So what I'm trying to say is this website has people mentioning problems with movies old and new and in between I've never heard before from anywhere in my life long love of movies. What I'm saying is, this place is a bit odd as far as opinions go.

If the humor is overused and is inserted in scenes that should be serious, it kills tension and that IS an issue. IM 3 had this issue in places.